In the mid-19th century, there was no more hotly debated topic than slavery. For good reason, slavery was a topic which garnered passionate speech, whether for or against it. No argument seemed fiercer than the debate over the Compromise of 1850. The Compromise of 1850, otherwise known as Clay’s Compromise, was a document which ensured compromise on the issue of slavery. Each side, slave states and free states, gained from the Compromise in their own way. The period before the Bill passed, however, was filled with fiery debate. The speeches given during this debate period were said to be, by Paul Johnson, “among the greatest in the entire history of Anglo-Saxon oratory”. (Johnson 399) The speeches given by William Seward, John Calhoun, and Daniel Webster were particularly well-articulated arguments regarding the Compromise. Seward disagreed from the standpoint of abolition; Calhoun disagreed from the standpoint of slave-owners; and Daniel Webster agreed with the measure based on his desire to defend slavery.
William Seward’s speech concerning the Compromise of 1850 is a brilliantly crafted argument from the viewpoint of an abolitionist. Much of his argument centers on two facts: “by the law of nature and of nations.” (Seward, Paragraph 4) Seward argues that the fundamental issue is the right of humans to be free, not property—the law of nature. His speech also argues that the nation’s allowance of slavery contradicts the morals of most of the other nations of similar economic and political development. Most of the nations of American stature have either abolished slavery, or “are preparing to abolish it as speedily as they can.” (Seward, Paragraph 27) Whatever problems Seward has with the Compromise, he certainly does not wish to dissolve the Union. He wishes to show slavery for the inhumane and unconstitutional practice it is. This is the case Seward makes for abolition—and it is a superb argument.
John Calhoun disagrees with Clay’s Compromise as well, but for altogether different reasons than William Seward does. Calhoun disagrees with the Compromise because he feels that it will unfairly balance the country toward the free states. Calhoun raises very poignant questions which are very pertinent to the discussion of slavery. Calhoun claims that the argument is not being fairly represented from both sides. Calhoun argues that the government has been delegating all of the land—and consequently the Congressional votes—to the North. His accurate assessment is this: “Whatever section concentrates the two [elements which constitute the federal government] in itself possesses the control of the entire government.” (Calhoun, Paragraph 9, Brackets added) Calhoun is concerned with the unity of the Union, as was Seward. Calhoun doesn’t see secession as imminent, but he does see it as inevitable if the South isn’t given more vote in the Congress—“if the agitation goes on, the same force, acting with increased intensity, as has been shown, will finally snap every cord, when nothing will be left to hold the States together except force.” (Calhoun, Paragraph 21) This issue of slavery is very divisive. John Calhoun knows this, and he has the end in view.
Daniel Webster takes a different view from either Seward or Calhoun. Webster supports the Clay Compromise, from the side of the slave-owners. Webster first admits that both sides have considered slavery a “moral and political evil.” (Webster, Paragraph 1) His argument for slavery however, is that it has been productive to the society as a whole; increasing the national export of cotton and making the country a vast sum of revenue. His claim is that the North has not been complicit with the clear instructions of the Constitution in regards to returning runaway slaves to their owners. His motive is not to impugn the Northerners for their complicity in this crime, or incite a bad reaction. Webster’s motive is the Union of the Nation. He desires that the nation be kept from secession; but he sees it possibly on the horizon, and he knows it will not be a clean ordeal. Speaking of a “peaceable secession”, Webster asks, “Who is so foolish—I beg everybody’s pardon—as to expect to see any such thing?” (Webster, Paragraph 9) Webster’s concern is that the nation will be torn asunder if the issue of slavery is not dealt with properly. This is why he feels Clay’s Compromise must be passed—it will benefit both sides and prevent the nation from secession.
The arguments for slavery and the arguments for abolition were very hotly contested topics. This was not a simple topic, and it could not be solved with a simple solution. Clay’s Compromise offered a solution which attempted to better both North and South. This solution was supported by some, and rejected by others. William Seward disagreed with the Bill because he wished to do away with slavery altogether. John Calhoun wished to do away with the Bill as well, but for fundamentally different reasons. Mr. Calhoun felt that the Compromise favored the North and abolition rather than fairly representing the opinions of the North and the South. Daniel Webster disagreed with both of these men. Webster favored the Compromise because he believed it would end talks of secession amongst the Union. Webster was correct in his hope that the South would cease speaking of secession with the acceptance of Clay’s Compromise. Secession was put off for awhile longer. Ultimately, however, this was not an issue which could be “swept under the rug” through compromise. The North and the South as well, was willing to fight over this issue as a fundamental issue of the nation.
Works Cited
Calhoun, J. (1850, March 4). John C. Calhoun on the Clay Compromise Measures. Retrieved 10 3, 2009, from NationalCenter.org: http://www.nationalcenter.org/CalhounClayCompromise.html
Johnson, P. (1997). A History of the American People. New York: Harper Perennial.
Seward, W. (n.d.). Furman University: Seward's Higher Law Speech. Retrieved 10 3, 2009, from Furman University: http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/seward.htm
Webster, D. (1850, March 7). On the Clay Compromise by Daniel Webster. Retrieved 10 3, 2009, from Bartleby.com: http://www.bartleby.com/268/9/4.html
No comments:
Post a Comment